Thursday, July 23, 2009

Concealed Carry Reciprosity - Not This Time

The Brady Blog reports on the good news.

The National Rifle Association leadership suffered a major defeat in the U.S. Senate today, losing a key vote on a bill that would have radically weakened rules governing the concealed carrying of firearms around the country.

Gun violence prevention advocates across America worked day and night contacting their Senators, convincing them to defeat the gun lobby's dangerous proposal. Today, all their hard work paid off as Senators voted to protect American communities and reject gun lobby threats.

Considering what's been pointed out many times around here, that the anti-gun movement has no grassroots support, this vote is particularly significant. Maybe now's the time for the gun lovers to really start worrying.

My friend Mud_Rake said it best. "A gun owner in Vermont could carry his weapon onto the streets of New York City because Vermont allows it. The weird world of the wacky right-wing!"

Thank goodness this will not become the law of the land.

After today's victory, I am hopeful that our Congress will begin to address proactive measures to reduce gun violence in this country by doing things like requiring criminal background checks for all gun sales, particularly at gun shows.

We've heard a lot about gun rights so far in this Congress. Now is the time to talk about gun responsibilities.

What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.


  1. In a way it's a good thing this didn't pass. It establishes the fact that gun control should be left to the states and that the federal government has no say in the matter, whether it's in regards to pro-gun legislation or anti-gun legislation.

    Considering most states already exercise concealed carry reciprocity on their own (my carry license is accepted in 32 states), it really only affects a handful of states. Specifically may-issue states where they have permits available, but only issue them to the wealthy and connected.

  2. "Maybe now's the time for the gun lovers to really start worrying." mikeb. The vote was 58 for 39 against (this vote needed 60 to pass). Which means 3 senators didn't vote, so there is still a chance it could pass in the future with the full senate. Besides, when nearly 60% of the senators vote in favor of something "gun lovers" support, why should they worry?

  3. Let's see Mike, we have a Democratically controlled Congress, the most anti-gun President in history, and national reciprocity fails by only 2 votes!

    Given the political climate, if you'd told me a year ago we'd be voting on a national reciprocity bill I'd think you were crazy. If you'd said it would get a majority of votes in a DEMOCRATIC Congress and come 2 votes shy of passing I'd call you certifiable.

    The anti's should be scared shitless here.

    Personally I'm not a big fan of the bill that failed. I'd much rather see this accomplished through Full Faith & Credit.

  4. Only the anti-freedom folks are audacious enough to claim that a 58-39 vote is a major victory.

    This will pass after we throw a few people out of congress.

    In the mean time, I will be augmenting my Oregon CHL with a Utah CCW which will increase my reciprocity from 13 to 33 states.

  5. Similar arguments were made back in the day.

    "A black man from Vermont could walk the streets of Birmingham because Vermont allows it. The weird world of the wacky left-wing!"

    Gotta love modern day discrimination by self-proclaimed 'progressives'.

  6. Gotta love the forcible citizen disarmament advocates' math. When Obama is elected Gun Banner in Chief, by 53% of the voters, it's a clear mandate for oppressive gun laws. When 58% of the Senate (actually, more like 59.8% of the senators who actually voted) votes for less oppressive gun laws, it's . . . also a mandate for oppressive gun laws.

    You guys can't lose!

  7. You guys are something. You accuse Helmke of distorting the facts, then you go on to describe this as a victory for the pro-gun side. Your spinning and denial are only surpassed by your persistence.

  8. mikeb,

    You need some reading comprehension lessons again. I just read over the comments and not a one claims this as a "victory for the pro-gun side."

    Aztec argues it is good it didn't pass.
    I argue that based on the vote, gun owners shouldn't worry.
    Mike W points out that this is in a Democratically controlled congress (which is the closest any of the commentators say about a "victory") but he also qualifies it by saying he wasn't a fan of the bill.
    kaveman and 45 point out the ludicrousy of a 58-39 vote being being hailed as a major victory for the gun control crowd.
    third makes a historical reference to the purpose of gun control in the beginning.

    Nope, I don't see any of us saying that this was a victory. In fact, I see quite a variety of opinions between the pro-gun people on whether this should have passed. I do think we all agree that this vote shows that there is not much support for gun control in the senate. That of course is no reason to become lacksidaisical in letting our Congressmen know how we feel.

  9. The VPC claimed that Michael C. Iheme had a CCW permit when he killed his wife. ACTUAL searches of court records find this:

    "No Permit on File."

    The VPC, relying exclusively on news reports instead of research, mistook a purchase permit for a CCW permit.

    How many other errors did they make in their numbers?

  10. Reputo, I'll take your word on that. Perhaps not one of you guys actually said this was a victory and I read more into the comments than was there. I'm not into going back searching for examples of what prompted me to say that in order to refute your comment that I was wrong. What that does is turns this into a tit-for-tat, you-said-this, no-you-said-that, kind of a pain-in-the-ass discussion. Bob S. loves to do that and I guess you do too.

    I'm not into it.